Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1887-03-03
The Wood County Bridge.
CONTRIBUTED.

the unloading upon the cities of Contra
liza and Grand Rapids, by Wood County,
Of the bridge across the Wisconsin
river connecting these two cities, having
met with merited defeat, in the Senate,
it is announced that Mr.. Lathrop, Of
body, bill to authorize Wood County
to make the said bridge TOLL bridge,
which bill Mr.. Lathrop purposes to
URGE upon the favorable consideration
of the Legislature.
The discussion Of the subject which
the introduction of 81 S., occasioned,
and the unfayorable actions of the
Senate with reference thereto, justifies
the belief that the Senate Judiciary
committee, atleast, and perhaps nearly
all members of the Senate, have already
learned under what circumstances
Wood County came to own the bridge
in question, and what EXPRESS obligations
were assumed by the County at the time
it purchased the bridge. Such
being the fact the action of the
judiciary committee in reporting
AGAINST that bill with substantial unami-
nifty implies that its members were
convinced either that the County COULD
NOT, as a matter Of law be authorized to
transfer the burden which it had volun-
tarily assumed to the tax payers of the
two cities, or that it would be UNJUST to
allow it to so transfer its burdens, or
that BOTH such propositions were and
are sound. Assuming then that so far
nothing has been stated that is either
untrue or unsound, it is submitted that
the proposition embodied in Mr.
Lathrop's bill, (No. 629 A., to authorize
the County to charge TOLLS to those
crossing it's said bridge is FAR MORE
Objectionable than was the proposition
contained in bill 81 Senate. Let us see
if this is not true: The county voIen-
tarily exercised its right to condemn
and purchase the bridge under and
pursuant to a special act of the Legisla-
ture Chap. 17S P. & L. Laws 1865, (which
,
UPON THE CONDITION that such bridge
should THEREAFTER be and REMAIN A FREE
BRIDGE. This power was deliberately
exercised some 10 years ago, when the
county was far poorer, more sparsely
settled, and less able to maintain a costly
bridge than now. The river is no
larger; the expense of maintaining a
bridge across it is no greater now than
then. The bridge had been erected by
private company, chartered to do SO
by the legislature and had been up to
that time maintained as toll bridge
1t crossed wide navigable river, which
even then a majority of the people Of
the county must cross in order to reach
their county seat, and to transact the
ordinary business of the county, private
as well as puplic. 1t was far too eXpen-
siye structure to be built and maintain
ed by Centralia or Grand Rapids, or
both; its necessity was admitted by ALL
The County by its Board of Supervisors
in Difference to the well-known senti-
ments of the people, purchased and
assumed the responsibility of maintain
ing the bridge, in order that all her
people might go to and from their
county seat and in the prosecution of
their business might at will cross the
river, without the payment of tolls.
No one discovered, for ten years or
more, that the policy of the County in
the respect named, was unWise or
unjust, to anyone. In the meantime the
County trebled in wealth and popula-
ton, and as result the use of the
bridge is demanded by a far greater
number of people-stranger and resi-
dents of the towns, as well as of the two
at a much LESS cost to the individual
tax payer. The County is RAPIDLY
GROWING in wealth and population, the
number who cross the bridge is constant
ly increasing, the per centage of the
cost of maintaining it, is constantly
decreasing. This is especially true as to
the towns. They are growing in wealth
and population far more rapidly than
are the cities of Centralia and Grand
Rapids. With these facts before us, it
is proposed to allow the COUNTY to
charge TOLLS for crossing its BRIDGE!
Who has ever HEARD of a COUNTY MAIN
TANNING a TOLL BRIDGE? 1t is a common
thing in the older states, if not in
Wisconsin, for counties to maintain
bridges upon large streams. For a
county to maintain TOLL bridge, it is
submitted, would be as unwarranted as
it would be novel. A county may
maintain ROADS, can it charge TOLL for
their use? If yes, why not TOWNS and
CITIES, as well? But passing considera-
tons such as these, what equitable right
has WooD COUNTY to charge tolls for the
use of this particular bridge? She as
summed the responsibility to maintain
it as a ''free bridge" She purchased
and became its owner, upon this EMPRESS
CONDITION. (Chap. Us P. & L. L. 1865. J